Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


Pregnant.jpg
Surrogacy is generally allowed in Washington, but contracts for compensation beyond basic expenses are prohibited. A bill that would have allowed paid surrogacy was defeated in 2011. Same-sex marriage opponents will fight similar bills planned for the 2013 legislative session. (AP file photo)

Gay marriage opponents plan to fight paid surrogacy in 2013

December 18, 2012 @ 8:48 pm (Updated: 8:15 am - 12/19/12 )

A leader of the effort to defeat same-sex marriage in Washington is gearing up for a 2013 legislative fight against paid surrogacy.

Surrogacy is the idea that a woman will carry a child to term with the understanding that it will be raised by other parents.

Surrogate contracts are generally allowed in our state, but contracts for compensation beyond basic expenses are prohibited.

Washington's Uniform Parentage Act makes it clear that "No person, organization, or agency shall enter into, induce, arrange, procure, or otherwise assist in the formation of a surrogate parentage contract, written or unwritten, for compensation."

Surrogates in Washington now may be compensated only for direct expenses, such as medical or legal bills.

Several legislators tried to change the law in 2011, but a measure that would have allowed for a more generous compensation of surrogates failed.

"Introducing the profit motive into surrogacy entices women to do something for financial reasons that they would otherwise not do," says Joseph Backholm, executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington.

In a statement, Backholm urges those who supported Referendum 74 - the failed effort to repeal Washington's same-sex marriage law - to call legislators in advance of the 2013 session opposing paid surrogacy.

"Recognizing the dignity of the human person, we do not allow people to rent or sell their bodies or their body parts," he says. "This partially explains why prostitution and the sale of your kidney are illegal. You can donate a kidney, you just can't sell one."

He says along with "practical" problems with paid surrogacy there are "philosophical" issues.

If paid surrogacy became lawful, Backholm says a dispute arising from a surrogacy contract would not be resolved based on the best interest of the child, but on the terms of the contract. In essence, he says a child becomes an "item of commerce."

A greater issue in Backholm's mind is that paid surrogacy "allows gay men to have a child that is biologically their own by paying someone to carry it when it would not otherwise be possible."

He suspects those seeking to redefine marriage "will argue that allowing children to be the subject of a legal contract is also going to be good for them. Or, perhaps they will argue that whatever harm might be done to a child is simply worth it."

Those in favor argue that surrogates provide a service and should be compensated for their efforts. Paying women, who have been educated about the process and pass background checks, can guard against problems.

Paid surrogacy is legal in some states, banned in others. Where it is allowed, payments range from about $18,000 to $30,000.

By LINDA THOMAS

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (44)


  • Add A Comment

  • O-town listener wrote...
    I was never very good in science..
    December 18, 2012 9:37 pm
    But I'm pretty sure this comment: "allows gay men to have a child that is biologically their own" is not possible.. Am I missing something that allows two men to mix their sperm and have a child that is biologically "their" own...? I'd rather not google "mixing male sperm" to find out..
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Smart3 wrote...
    IVF
    December 19, 2012 7:32 am
    Three-person In-vitro fertilization has already been accomplished. It is entirely possible in the near future that one male could provide the sperm, and the other could provide genetic material as well, making them both biological parents. Science is amazing. You can google three-person IVF for more information.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • stanJames wrote...
    paid surrogacy
    December 19, 2012 3:50 pm
    Is there no end to the hatred of gay people ? The family policy institute is a right wing organization that hates gay people and is an attachment of the AFA which is on the hate group list. Usual extrremist xtians best described in the book the christian right and the war on America by Chris Hedges You can buy it via ebay, half.ebay.com or amazon for about $11 delivered Most of these people are of the mindset that banned interacial marriages as protecting the sanctity of the white race. Lawa that were finally all trashed in 1967
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Cheesus Toast...now the anti-gay crowd is trying to do away with surrogacy?
    December 18, 2012 10:57 pm
    Here's a novel idea. Why don't you folks just go on about living our own life, minding your own business, and let other people go about living theirs?

    Hey look! Everybody who was married before the law was upheld by the voters last month is *still married*! How can that be? We were told that "all of them thar homer-sex-you-alls and lesser-bein's is out to redefine marriage!"

    Same sex couples have been hiring surrogates for many, many years. Kids raised in same sex households turn out decent at at least the same rate as the general population- and statistically the percentage of them that turn out gay or lesbian compares very closely to kids raised in traditional or single parent households.

    To the anti-gay group: Nothing the gays are going to do changes your sexuality or the relationship with your spouse or your kids. Live and let live. Leave these people the heck alone- they are in no way hurting or threatening you.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Here is another idea, Chuck -
    December 19, 2012 2:59 am
    There is a crying need for liver transplants in this country. .. And, as not the entire liver from a donor is necessary for a transplant, why not allow those in need to entice liver matches by paying them, say $100,000 for a part of their liver? ....... And those needing a new kidney should not have to wait either. After all, everyone is born with two, so there should be no laws against selling ONE.

    Uh, Chuck? Think about what you just posted in favor of? ... ANY gay couple can currently find a surrogate volunteer - same as nay man/woman couple unable to produce children biologically. What paying a profit to surrogates would do is allow wealthy couples to entice women to carry children for them.

    Aside from the arrogance that a biological child - even if only 50% - is vastly superior to, and would be loved more, than an adopted child, the probability of exploiting poor women is undeniable.

    But, then, the left would never exploit women .......... would they ?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Ron, you really ought to be able to sell *your own* kidney, liver, etc.
    December 19, 2012 7:05 am
    The only downside of establishing a paying market for body organs is that some dirt bags will seek to profit by forcibly removing organs from unwilling (and uncompensated) sources.

    It's your body. If you want to sell it, (or rent it to be used as a baby factory for nine months), why should anybody have the right to insist you cannot?

    You mention poor women. In some cases, being on the "payroll" and earning a middle class or better wage for almost a year (in addition to expenses, of course) just might break that cycle of poverty and dependency that keeps people down.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Chuck, the next step is for someone ELSE to sell your organs.
    December 19, 2012 5:02 pm
    China makes a tidy profit selling organs of prisoners. ... And executes them as necessary.

    Supply and demand meets Maoist communism.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    BTW, the way I read this post, gay couples would NOT be prohibited from having surrogates.
    December 20, 2012 2:48 am
    And neither would straight couples. ... And surrogacy would NOT be outlawed, nor paying for medical costs and reasonable expenses.

    It's FOR PROFIT surrogacy that would not be allowed. .. For ANYBODY !

    Geeze, these days if you put 'Gay' in the headline or Title, you could sanction hunting pandas or eating puppies.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    you really should read it before you comment Chuck
    December 19, 2012 4:32 am
    but I will say your "Homer-sex-you-alls" was pretty good.

    If "same sex couples have been hiring surrogates for many, many years", then they have been violating the law. Read above...

    Washington's Uniform Parentage Act makes it clear that "No person, organization, or agency shall enter into, induce, arrange, procure, or otherwise assist in the formation of a surrogate parentage contract, written or unwritten, for compensation."

    If you want to get out of other peoples' business then legalize prostitution that only involves two consenting adults. Paid surrogacy involves a non-consenting third party minor in an unnatural commercial act..... "The child becomes an item of commerce."

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DJFavorite wrote...
    what the law says
    December 19, 2012 5:53 am
    Is that no one can be 'compensated' for creating (formation) of the CONTRACT. It doesn't say a contract is illegal. If you read the full law, it outlines who can be compensated and for what. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.26
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    it is lawyers who write these laws
    December 19, 2012 6:08 am
    I can't believe that they would write it in such a way that they (the lawyers who formulate the agreement) would be the only party in violation.

    It says that "no person shall enter into" a compensated agreement. That would go beyond just the person who formulates it.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DJFavorite wrote...
    Which is the point...
    December 19, 2012 6:38 am
    ... you can enter into an agreement, you just can't be compensated. There are other sections in the law that does say there can be payment for medical tests (such as genetic tests), and medical care. And even legal fees. You just have to look through each section.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Paul, the child will always be a non-consenting third party
    December 19, 2012 7:07 am
    without regard to the manner in which the pregnancy was initiated. Did anybody ask you if you wanted to be born? Did you ask any of your kids? Of course not.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • imanegro wrote...
    ding dong, you're wrong
    December 19, 2012 6:43 am
    "these people" (as you say) won't leave 'us' alone. Soon, school curriculum will change to reflect homos. Then I have to tell them the books they read are wrong. Homos are people, though their sexual conduct is wrong. I don't want to have the discussion about extreme promiscuity, the rectum/penis thing, AIDS, hepatitis A, B, C, GBS, HPV, and the many other diseases and physical ramifications common to homos. At least not until they are MUCH older, like 13 or 14.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    AIDS, hepatitis A, B, C, GBS, HPV
    December 19, 2012 7:16 am
    Promiscuity and unprotected sex has more to do with that than homosexuality.

    School curriculum has also changed to reflect equality of different races. Get over it.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • awbitf wrote...
    I know this is just the Internet, but I hope you take this advice.
    December 19, 2012 8:42 am
    Imanegro wrote...I don't want to have the discussion about extreme promiscuity, the rectum/penis thing, AIDS, hepatitis A, B, C, GBS, HPV, and the many other diseases and physical ramifications ... At least not until they are MUCH older, like 13 or 14.

    If you're waiting until your kids are 13 or 14, you've probably waited too long to talk to them about this stuff. Everything you listed above is possible in ANY sexual encounter, it is not exclusive to homosexuality.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • tlmbrt wrote...
    Unintended consequences
    December 19, 2012 6:30 am
    Let's say that we allow surrogacy to become a for-profit business. The cost of the service is listed in the article as currently $18 to 30K. What happens when lower income couples want to have a baby this way, but can't afford it? Will we then be seeing demands for government programs to subsidize it on taxpayer money? Perhaps the libs will then demand it be covered under health care insurance, like birth control? And how about outright fraud?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • NoiseMan wrote...
    Once the government subsidizes surrogacy.....
    December 19, 2012 7:06 am
    I wonder what the prevailing wage rate for a surrogate will be?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    "When lower income couples want to have a baby this way...".
    December 19, 2012 7:15 am
    They find a surrogate willing to donate her time. Allowing people to be a surrogate for profit doesn't mean that some surrogates wouldn't continue to volunteer. Just like legalizing prostitution wouldn't suddenly mean that no woman would ever have sex unless she were paid for it.

    If the couple is of extremely low income, they probably aren't even in a position to pay the associated expenses of a pregnancy. If they are ridiculously poor, should they be adding to the size of their family before taking steps to improve their financial condition? If this were a discussion about welfare, instead of surrogacy, most conservatives would *agree* that poor folks should be reluctant to have children.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Gee Chuck
    December 19, 2012 1:15 pm
    In a perfect worl low income people would think before they decided to bring a child into the world in the first place. Unfortanely, that is impossible and one of the main reason ILLEGLS come to this country to crank out as many little Illegals as possible. FREE VERYTHING from Mommy & Daddy. BIG LIBERAL Government. You got the LEFT and Obama Promoting it like a Tourism Agency. Again, the Gay Community wants SPECIAL RIGHTS not Equal Rights.....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • stanJames wrote...
    drivel from the right
    December 19, 2012 4:04 pm
    same old right wing drivel - so many BS statements. Wonder which hate group sent them all here NOM *yes it is listed as a a hate group for telling viscous lies
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ElenaT wrote...
    EVERY JOB
    December 19, 2012 6:37 am
    I something done for financial game that one would otherwise not do. Telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies is overstepping the bounds of government. Unlike prostitution, which has obvious victims and more gray area, surrogacy only attracts those who are willing and committed to the outcome. This is disgusting, and petulant. Plenty of heterosexual couples need to turn to surrogacy as well, but they aren't the issue - restricting the rights of women is the issue.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    typical liberal feminist nonsense
    December 19, 2012 6:52 am
    as far as I concerned you can do anything you want with your body. You can eat like a pig, do all the drugs you want or jump off a bridge for all I care. Just don't involve anyone else, such as the person who has to subsidize your healthcare or an innocent baby (or fetus). Talk about disgusting.

    Can't you intellectually challenged bimbos come up with any new cliches, besides the same old worn out "Telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies"?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Elena, we are not talking about surrogacy as it exists now, legally.
    December 19, 2012 6:59 am
    It is PAID surrogacy.

    In that respect, it becomes very much like prostitution as exploiting women for their bodies. ... At what price would this practice NOT be exploitive? Preying especially on poor women. .......

    But, I guess, if you call it 'women's rights' the left can justify almost anything.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Ron, when anyone is voluntarily "exploited" and compensated....
    December 19, 2012 7:20 am
    it is customarily considered employment.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    As was Irish labor in the 19th century.
    December 19, 2012 5:16 pm
    Chuck, please back out of this trap you've gotten into.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Dude Abides wrote...
    Let's be real here, ron
    December 19, 2012 9:23 am
    if women are allowed to hold an auction on their uterus to the highest bidder, then who's exploiting who here?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Hey, Dude -
    December 19, 2012 5:08 pm
    then, why are their laws against prostitution?

    If you believe that some equivalent of a pimp will never exploit surrogacy, you're livimg in a dream world.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Dude Abides wrote...
    I mostly agree...
    December 19, 2012 9:26 am
    NO ONE should be allowed to be told what to do with their bodies, be it male or female. My only question for you, elena, is this. Who is the victim in prostitution, when it's two (or more) people engaging in a legal activity? George Carlin said it best (cleaned up for forum purposes)..."Selling is legal. Fornication is legal. Why isn't selling fornication legal?" Also, if you take the religious factor out (which you should, considering that we are talking about whether prostitution is legally right, not morally right), where is the gray area? We have seen clear-cut proof that legal prostitution is a good thing. Proper establishments make sure that their "companions" are disease-free, and they also pay taxes, which benefits everyone.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Just cut to the chase.
    December 19, 2012 7:21 am
    It's not about the money, it's about gay people raising children.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Gay people
    December 19, 2012 1:23 pm
    Should be able to have children and they. Can adopt or. PAY FOR THEIR OWN SURROGATE! Again, this is all about SPECIAL RIGHTS not EQUAL Rights.....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Hey, Maplefish...you're right, but the issue here is that the anti-gay crowd wants to make it illegal
    December 19, 2012 4:31 pm
    for gays to pay for a surrogate. I entirely agree with you. Those who want to have a child through a surrogate, (gay or straight), should pay out of pocket for the surrogate.

    Gay people should have the same right to use a surrogate as straight people do. How is that asking for special rights?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    The simple fact that this effort to eliminate surrogacy is being led by the anti-gay crowd
    December 19, 2012 7:32 am
    establishes that the issue here isn't really surrogacy, (just as, for a good many, Referendum 74 wasn't really about marriage).

    Just another means to make life as difficult as possible for a group of people who are "unlike" the rest of us in a rather fundamental way. The rest of us don't have to like, endorse, or even pretend to understand homosexuality. But the rest of us need to remember that the same freedoms that we expect to enjoy in our own lives are no less dear to people who have different values.

    The right of somebody to swing their sexual fist stops at the end of their neighbor's nose. As one of the hundred versions of the Golden Rule states, "if it harm none, do as thou wilt". The gays should be allowed to do as they like until it impedes on the rights of the straights. Nothing in the recent changes to the marriage law or under consideration with surrogacy reduces the rights of straights. The anti-gay crowd *lost* the election. Please, just leave people alone.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    and who labeled them "the anti-gay crowd"?
    December 19, 2012 7:40 am
    could it be the same people who label anyone who is critical of the President a "racist"? Such an easy way to dismiss an argument. Yea, you're right Chuck, we shouldn't even discuss it now since the argument is only being made from a bunch of ignorant, intolerant, anti-women homophobes. You win.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Paul, If you're "anti- gay marriage"...
    December 19, 2012 8:11 am
    but "pro marriage", you're only opposed to one of the variables. Many people who supported Referendum 74 quite likely believe that in a perfect world nobody would be having sex outside of marriage or before their own wedding night. With their failed attempt to deny gays the right to marry, that particular group was essentially working to make sure that homosexuality would always be considered a "sin". Those who oppose sex outside of wedlock would be able to say, "Be gay, if that's how you were born- but, sorry, no sex for you in your life."

    Is homosexuality a "sin"? Depends on how one interprets his or her choice of holy scripture. Lots of things we commonly do, (including working on Sundays, eating shellfish, etc), are considered "sins" in the Bible. Even if homosexuality is a sin, (don't personally know, frankly) then it's a matter of religious, not secular law. Maybe the rest of us need to address our own shortcomings before we presume to criticize our neighbors for theirs.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cameron wrote...
    The State cannot seem to get out of it's own way.
    December 19, 2012 8:32 am
    Hypocrits All. If it truely a woman or man's right to choose what they do with their own body, then the State's interest in paid surrogacy simply becomes a matter of recording a retail transaction for service and taxing accordingly. The same applies to adult consentual acts of prostitution and the sale of body parts by willing donors. Either the one party monopoly that runs this State really means "it's a woman's right to choose and control what happens with her own body" the same should be extended to men as well, but it is rarely if ever mentioned, or it doesn't. The actions of the current State monopoly party show them to be hypocrits on this issue.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Yep. Just as I said:
    December 19, 2012 9:39 am
    Open the door a crack, and they shove their way in. The end is near....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Just remember this 5-0 when you say "The end is near...."
    December 19, 2012 10:06 am
    The gay cop's motto, "Never leave your partner's behind". Just make sure 'your end' is not near, 5-0. Just kidding 5-0, I know you're not gay.LOL
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • stanJames wrote...
    busybodies
    December 19, 2012 4:10 pm
    whats it got to do with you - busybody or are you like the two chief homophobes in my state legislature (NE USA) Both of them - their wives found out their political meetings - some of them - were PUBIC meetings One of them - the regular gay guy got the action on a vid - wait till the next election time and you tube. BTw one - his wife left him - the other hired a pvt dick to follow him around via his Iphone GPS
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • murr wrote...
    See how this gets started, their will be no end
    December 19, 2012 12:37 pm
    Like all other hand outs, but he got his votes he/we paid for.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • GloScot wrote...
    Pretending
    December 19, 2012 2:43 pm
    This game of pretend continues to its second act.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }